The recently released IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and …

The politics of climate change have become mired in yet another controversy. Allegations of conflict of interest appeared in the blogosphere after it was discovered that one of the authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (SRREN) is also a prominent advocate for renewable energy with Greenpeace. Two commentaries discussing this have appeared in Nature Climate Change, one arguing that the report may be biased and the other saying that the claims are unfounded.

The facts

Sven Teske

Greenpeace

The report, released on June 14, discusses scientific and technological issues related to six renewable energy sources (bioenergy, solar, geothermal, hydropower, ocean, and wind) as well as integration issues, costs, and policy recommendations. The conflict-of-interest controversy is centered on chapter 10, where the report evaluates 164 existing scenarios for renewable energy deployment. The authors focused on four of these for more in-depth analysis and discussion.

One of the four scenarios (the most optimistic) has 77 percent of the 2050 global energy demand met using renewable sources. It's based on a study performed by the German Aerospace Center (DLR) but commissioned by Greenpeace. This scenario formed the basis of a Greenpeace report as well as a peer-reviewed article that appeared in the journal Energy Efficiency; both of these were written (in part) by Sven Teske. Teske is one of the lead authors of chapter 10 of the SRREN. Some people are arguing that this is a conflict of interest, and that the assessments of the report are biased due to this author’s affiliation.

The other main issue people are criticizing is the prominent mention of this scenario in the press release (which was then repeated by the world media), and the fact that the press release and Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) were released a month ahead of the full report (with references and author lists). However, neither the press release nor the SPM present this scenario as the most likely, but rather note it was the most optimistic considered, and provided an upper limit for the assessment. The material also highlighted the low scenario, at 15 percent renewables.

The commentary

The first commentary was written by Mark Lynas, a climate change commentator and writer based in the UK, and it reflected the arguments he made a recent blog post. Lynas suggests that the mere appearance of a conflict of interest is an issue, regardless of whether it can actually be proven. He argues that the Working Group III, the organizers behind the SRREN, disregarded the conflict-of-interest recommendations of the Working Group I, which appear to address this specific issue: “The assessment must be ‘neutral with respect to policy’, and therefore an IPCC Author cannot be, at the same time, in a leading position of an NGO working towards specific policies.”

However, this recommendation applies to authors on the board of an NGO, and recommends that the author resign from the board. In this case, Teske is certainly a member of Greenpeace, but not a member of its board.

In his blog post, Lynas tries to put the controversy in perspective by considering the opposing scenario, one where an Exxon-Mobil employee served as an author on an IPCC report discussing the future of fossil fuels—he suggests that Greenpeace would be outraged at this conflict of interest. There is certainly an argument to be made there, but I’m not sure the comparison is fair. While one of Greenpeace’s goals is certainly the increased use of renewable energy sources, Exxon-Mobil actually profits from the use of fossil fuels.

The second article was written by Ottmar Edenhofer, one of the SRREN’s coordinating lead authors and head of the Research Domain Sustainable Solutions at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). He defended the neutrality and unbiased conclusions of the report. Edenhofer says that it is the mission of the group to evaluate the full range of scenarios for renewable energy development, of which the Greenpeace-related scenario is the most optimistic; the report doesn’t endorse a specific proposal or scenario. He emphasizes that the scenario discussed in the SRREN was based on that appearing in a peer-reviewed journal, and that the Greenpeace report itself was not part of the assessment.

Edenhofer disagrees that there was any conflict of interest in the findings of the report. All IPCC reports include a team of experts in the relevant areas reviewing the literature—naturally, that might include their own work. Indeed, the National Academies of Sciences, whose policies the IPCC share, says that reviewing your own work isn’t a conflict of interest if that work is relevant to the review. For this particular report, the entire team of authors selected the scenarios for the chapter, so no author was able to choose their own work over others.

The controversy?

Lynas claims that Teske was given a "pole position" among the lead authors, but there doesn’t appear to be any evidence supporting this. Teske was one of nine lead authors of chapter 10, with two coordinating lead authors, one additional contributing author, and two review editors. The whole point of these teams is to ensure that one opinion isn’t dominant and the resulting assessments are unbiased. The blog posts and Lynas’s commentary make it sound like Teske was the sole author of the chapter and press release, but this is clearly not the case.

Lynas also takes issue with the fact that the scenario in question apparently comes from a Greenpeace report “rather than being solely an independent IPCC conclusion.” But the assessments in the SRREN only considered existing scenarios. No new scenarios were created for the report, and this particular scenario was drawn from a scientific journal article.

While Teske’s affiliation with an advocacy group such as Greenpeace may be questionable, a group of renewable energy experts such as the one organized for this report will naturally include some advocates for the greater use of renewables. The affiliations of all authors contributing in some way to the report are posted in annex IV, and I count 25 authors from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory—certainly experts, but also likely to be advocates. In fact, one of the other lead authors of chapter 10 is affiliated with the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica, while three authors in other sections are from Chevron, for example—groups unlikely to be on the same side of renewable energy as Greenpeace.

The delay between the release of the SPM and the full report (over a month) is problematic, since only the full report includes the references. There's unlikely to be anything hidden here, but it's always best to have coverage of these reports be as informed as possible. If a press release goes out, then everything should be available.

There were other problems with the press release, including the fact that the 77 percent scenario was cited in the first sentence. That looks bad, even though Sven Teske was not involved in its writing. Teske wasn't a lead author on the SPM, either, and that's likely the most influential of the documents released.

It seems much of this controversy is the product of a bit too much of a hook in the press release, rather than an activist hijacking an IPCC report. In the future, organizations such as the IPCC should be more careful with the conclusions they include in a press release to avoid any appearances of conflicts of interest. But the controversy here appears to be more manufactured than genuine.

Kyle Niemeyer
Kyle is a science writer for Ars Technica. He is a postdoctoral scholar at Oregon State University and has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Case Western Reserve University. Kyle's research focuses on combustion modeling. Emailkyleniemeyer.ars@gmail.com//Twitter@kyle_niemeyer

I find it rather disheartening that in order to ensure that the media doesn't start reporting that there is a major controversy, the IPCC will need to be incredibly careful to avoid not just conflict of interest (which is a good thing to avoid), but everything that could possibly be construed as a conflict of interest. What do you know, people who study the environment, and thus are shown every day as part of their job the damage that's being done, might just be advocates for fixing it. I guess if you can't find a problem with the science, but you don't like the conclusions, creating a fake controversy is the best way to fight it.

I've heard from reliable sources that there is indeed a sad polar bear behind the rainbow flag in the article picture. The fact that the photo is cropped makes this hard to discern but if you have some spare time you can use the 'uncrop' function in Photoshop to reveal this.

Additionally, now that I think about it, would it indeed be wrong to have an Exxon Mobil employee (assuming they have the scientific credentials) be 1 out of the 10 people authoring a section on percentage of renewable energy? GreenPeace would complain, for sure, but I don't think it would be wrong (as long as the XOM employee's associations are revealed). Especially if the estimate that particular group is highlighted as the most pessimistic scenario?

This "controversy" is just the right-wings standard operating procedure-if something doesn't agree with you 100%, just scream "bias!" until it's changed. That's how they managed to get the press in the U.S. to stop being unbiased and start covering the news from a conservative position.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. - feyman

A person is never so blind as when they're paycheck depends on their not seeing. -me

People tend to think that scientists are better than average people at being objective and not suffering from cognitive dissonance and other psychological impediments. Scientists make careers out of pursuing certain theories, they become attached to them and their paychecks are tied to them. People who dole out grants do so in a manner that often reinforces certain preconceived ideas, and they give them to those researchers who have a vested interest in certain view points.

The one I'm most familiar with is the conventional wisdom that low fat diets are heart healthy. Getting money to test that theory until recently was almost impossible. And bringing up the suggestion would get you shouted down with insults, erudite ones, but insults none the less. Moreover, when the occasional paper would surface, it would not get published nor would the media pick up on it. That is changing, and you can chart the course by looking at the American Heart Association's various dietary recommendations over the last 10 or 12 years.

Well, how active a member of GreenPeace is he? Anyone can become a member of GreenPeace by paying a nominal annual tax-deductible amount. Not anyone can become an employee of Exxon Mobil.

OTOH, if he is an employee of GreenPeace, or very actively involved in it, then the argument is on sounder footing, and I think it would be inappropriate for him to participate.

A quick google shows "Director of Greenpeace International's Renewable Energy Campaign", "Greenpeace International Climate Campaigner" and has spoken and written articles on behalf of Greenpeace.

It's an interesting ethics problem, but it's not really a conflict of interest. It's a pretty easy test, does he or Greenpeace benefit from the IPCC adopting a position that pushes harder for greener technologies? The answer is no. Obviously he doesn't personally, he's not being paid, but neither is Greenepeace. Greenpeace can't get extra funding from the adoption of solar, if anything it hurts them in the long run since it gives them less to do, they have to go back to just saving pandas instead of trying to stop us triggering a runaway greenhouse effect.

All that can really be done here is Teske can be easily labelled a green nut by the anti-climate change nuts, but that doesn't make it a conflict of interest. He holds opinions and those opinions has him speaking for Greenpeace. We can't get people doing years of work and research only to ignore everything they've learned.

I find it rather disheartening that in order to ensure that the media doesn't start reporting that there is a major controversy, the IPCC will need to be incredibly careful to avoid not just conflict of interest (which is a good thing to avoid), but everything that could possibly be construed as a conflict of interest.

Nothing new, public (civil) servants are expected to avoid apparent conflict of interests [http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/TB_851/vec-cve1-eng.asp#_Toc46202809 officially]. Not that this necessarily is enforced with politically appointment government employees (elected or otherwise).

People tend to think that scientists are better than average people at being objective and not suffering from cognitive dissonance and other psychological impediments. Scientists make careers out of pursuing certain theories, they become attached to them and their paychecks are tied to them. People who dole out grants do so in a manner that often reinforces certain preconceived ideas, and they give them to those researchers who have a vested interest in certain view points.

I think I know of at least one person who would disagree:

Carl Sagan wrote:

There is no other species on the Earth that does science. It is, so far, entirely a human invention, evolved by natural selection in the cerebral cortex for one simple reason: it works. It is not perfect. It can be misused. It is only a tool. But it is by far the best tool we have, self-correcting, ongoing, applicable to everything. It has two rules. First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless. Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised. We must understand the Cosmos as it is and not confuse how it is with how we wish it to be.

(Speaking of Carl Sagan) This looks like an Ad Hominem argument. If you have a problem with the science then simply disprove the data. If you can't disprove the data, then you might have to accept it as fact.

Bah. Greenpeace has consultative status to the United Nations, anyway. I fail to see the 'controversy' in the IPCC soliciting advice from an independent NGO committed to finding renewable energy solutions and whose efforts are anchored in scientific research.

I can tell you, from a skeptic's point of view, the IPCC is not helping the AGW cause. Every piece of data, and every paper, it touches loses immediate credibility.

In AR4, The Physical Science Basis section contains 11 chapters. I picked one at random (chapter 6), and looked at the papers it references. There are 13.5 pages of references, about 50 references per page.

Are you saying every single one of those has lost credibility? Is that really any sort of informed skepticism?

The problem here is that even if the claims are true, it does nothing to disprove AGW. At the end of the day you can burn all the witches, but if the crops still aren't growing you might want to come up with a theory aside from witchcraft.

The IPCC should either be disbanded or completely gutted of it's current leadership. Pachauri, in particular, needs to go.

I can tell you, from a skeptic's point of view, the IPCC is not helping the AGW cause. Every piece of data, and every paper, it touches loses immediate credibility.

I mean this wholeheartedly. The IPCC is detrimental to what you AGW guys are trying to achieve and, quite frankly, is a clownish organization.

You're not helping anyone do anything either, but you seem pretty happy about your position. I'm not sure what, precisely, you're trying to achieve here. There's lots of publicly-available data out there. Most of it was collected, analyzed, and reported on by people with no connection to the IPCC other than being cited by them later. If being referred to by an organization is enough for you to dismiss otherwise-sound arguments, I think that says a whole lot more about your reasoning skills than it does about science or the IPCC.

The IPCC should either be disbanded or completely gutted of it's current leadership. Pachauri, in particular, needs to go.

I can tell you, from a skeptic's point of view, the IPCC is not helping the AGW cause. Every piece of data, and every paper, it touches loses immediate credibility.

I mean this wholeheartedly. The IPCC is detrimental to what you AGW guys are trying to achieve and, quite frankly, is a clownish organization.

Regardless of how a group of scientists got together to write and research this, there would be people who pick out the 6 things wrong then use it to slander the entire organisation, write media beatups and result in people stating that the entire process is flawed and they have 3 blogs they found that prove why.

But as a skeptic, I take it you've read all the IPCC's work before commenting on it though? It's what a good skeptic does, looks at all the information and comes to a conclusion. I'm not sure why the entire IPCC is worthy of losing credibility though, but as a skeptic I'm sure you've come to a reasonable conclusion based upon a mountain of evidence pointing towards the worthlessness of the group.

The IPCC should either be disbanded or completely gutted of it's current leadership. Pachauri, in particular, needs to go.

I can tell you, from a skeptic's point of view, the IPCC is not helping the AGW cause. Every piece of data, and every paper, it touches loses immediate credibility.

I mean this wholeheartedly. The IPCC is detrimental to what you AGW guys are trying to achieve and, quite frankly, is a clownish organization.

You're not helping anyone do anything either, but you seem pretty happy about your position. I'm not sure what, precisely, you're trying to achieve here. There's lots of publicly-available data out there. Most of it was collected, analyzed, and reported on by people with no connection to the IPCC other than being cited by them later. If being referred to by an organization is enough for you to dismiss otherwise-sound arguments, I think that says a whole lot more about your reasoning skills than it does about science or the IPCC.

I get it. Yes, I'm sure the data was collected, analyzed and reported by people with no connection to the IPCC, but the fact remains that the IPCC put their stain on it. If that organization is involved, I'm not going to waste my time doing any homework on ANYTHING they say. There are too many examples of them making outlandish statements backed only by the words of some other NGO or activist. Himalaya-gate is just one example.

I stand by my statement. Until you guys get serious, and get rid of Pachauri and crew, anything they touch is going to be deemed as not credible, if not fraudulent.

If a known con-artist calls me with "the greatest business opportunity ever", do I, as a good skeptic, need to investigate the veracity of his claims? Of course not, I hang up on him and look elsewhere for a real opportunity.

The conflict of interest angle doesn't impress me in this instance. What annoys me is what you get when you Google "renewable energy 77%". That over ambitious PR headline is what was transmitted around the world when, in fact, the scenario in question had no scientific merit (it was based on assumptions that were already false at the time of publication.)

What worries me more is the fact that although the IPCC has a conflict of interest policy it has never implemented it, and isn't even implementing it for the assessment report currently underway.

I get it. Yes, I'm sure the data was collected, analyzed and reported by people with no connection to the IPCC, but the fact remains that the IPCC put their stain on it. If that organization is involved, I'm not going to waste my time doing any homework on ANYTHING they say. There are too many examples of them making outlandish statements backed only by the words of some other NGO or activist. Himalaya-gate is just one example.

Um, didn't this claim get refuted in another thread? Why are you repeating it?

Quote:

I stand by my statement. Until you guys get serious, and get rid of Pachauri and crew, anything they touch is going to be deemed as not credible, if not fraudulent.

Any group put together is going to be discredited by someone for some reason with some agenda. Thats why the research and conclusions are open, so that instead of attacking the individuals involved, you can see for yourself.

Quote:

If a known con-artist calls me with "the greatest business opportunity ever", do I, as a good skeptic, need to investigate the veracity of his claims? Of course not, I hang up on him and look elsewhere for a real opportunity.

The conflict of interest angle doesn't impress me in this instance. What annoys me is what you get when you Google "renewable energy 77%". That over ambitious PR headline is what was transmitted around the world when, in fact, the scenario in question had no scientific merit (it was based on assumptions that were already false at the time of publication.)

What worries me more is the fact that although the IPCC has a conflict of interest policy it has never implemented it, and isn't even implementing it for the assessment report currently underway.

What interest is legitimatly being conflicted with? Read up on the legal definition of conflict of interest before responding, please.

What interest is legitimatly being conflicted with? Read up on the legal definition of conflict of interest before responding, please.

Did you read what I said? I said I *didn't* believe this was a conflict of interest. The job of the IPCC is to collect and disseminate the science and that's exactly what they did. I'm not even saying they shouldn't have chosen that scenario because scenarios are exactly that - they don't have to be realistic predictions.

My only complaint is about the PR (and possibly the predictable MSM response). Or were you referring to my comment about the IPCC's unused conflict of interest policy?

The IPCC should either be disbanded or completely gutted of it's current leadership. Pachauri, in particular, needs to go.

I can tell you, from a skeptic's point of view, the IPCC is not helping the AGW cause. Every piece of data, and every paper, it touches loses immediate credibility.

I mean this wholeheartedly. The IPCC is detrimental to what you AGW guys are trying to achieve and, quite frankly, is a clownish organization.

You're not helping anyone do anything either, but you seem pretty happy about your position. I'm not sure what, precisely, you're trying to achieve here. There's lots of publicly-available data out there. Most of it was collected, analyzed, and reported on by people with no connection to the IPCC other than being cited by them later. If being referred to by an organization is enough for you to dismiss otherwise-sound arguments, I think that says a whole lot more about your reasoning skills than it does about science or the IPCC.

I get it. Yes, I'm sure the data was collected, analyzed and reported by people with no connection to the IPCC, but the fact remains that the IPCC put their stain on it. If that organization is involved, I'm not going to waste my time doing any homework on ANYTHING they say. There are too many examples of them making outlandish statements backed only by the words of some other NGO or activist. Himalaya-gate is just one example.

I stand by my statement. Until you guys get serious, and get rid of Pachauri and crew, anything they touch is going to be deemed as not credible, if not fraudulent.

If a known con-artist calls me with "the greatest business opportunity ever", do I, as a good skeptic, need to investigate the veracity of his claims? Of course not, I hang up on him and look elsewhere for a real opportunity.

I think the better example would be "If a known con-artist worked for Goldman Sachs and Goldman recommended to it's investors that they should buy stock in Company X who produced excellent financial records, then Company X's records are false". Which is still wrong since the IPCC isn't a known con-artist (if you have evidence to prove that, I'm sure many would be interested to hear). And all they're doing is referencing work, how the heck does that make it fraudulent?

You're attacking it by association alone when there isn't even a problem with the group you're associating it with. Throwing the label "skeptic" on yourself doesn't make it any better.

I get it. Yes, I'm sure the data was collected, analyzed and reported by people with no connection to the IPCC, but the fact remains that the IPCC put their stain on it. If that organization is involved, I'm not going to waste my time doing any homework on ANYTHING they say.

Then it appears that you mislabeled things when you described your perception as a "skeptic's point of view."

If a known con-artist calls me with "the greatest business opportunity ever", do I, as a good skeptic, need to investigate the veracity of his claims?

Let's think about this for a second and apply the same sort of logic you're using to smear scientists based solely on being referenced by an IPCC report (we'll grant for the sake of argument that the IPCC is on par with a con artist, something you've provided nothing in support of). Why then, wouldn't we also think less of *you* simply because a con artist called you on the phone, regardless of whether or not you fell for (or were in on?) the con?

What interest is legitimatly being conflicted with? Read up on the legal definition of conflict of interest before responding, please.

Did you read what I said? I said I *didn't* believe this was a conflict of interest. The job of the IPCC is to collect and disseminate the science and that's exactly what they did. I'm not even saying they shouldn't have chosen that scenario because scenarios are exactly that - they don't have to be realistic predictions.

My only complaint is about the PR (and possibly the predictable MSM response). Or were you referring to my comment about the IPCC's unused conflict of interest policy?

I like pitzer's retroactive contamination argument. I'm going to use it to the same reasoning to instantly discredit everything historical that Hitler refers to in Mein Kampf. You know, it's got that Hitler stain now, it must be worthless. No, I'm not just using this as a convenient excuse to ignore everything that disagrees with me out of hand, without critical examination or true skepticism! Everyone knows that guilt by association is how skepticism works!

I like pitzer's retroactive contamination argument. I'm going to use it to the same reasoning to instantly discredit everything historical that Hitler refers to in Mein Kampf. You know, it's got that Hitler stain now, it must be worthless. No, I'm not just using this as a convenient excuse to ignore everything that disagrees with me out of hand, without critical examination or true skepticism! Everyone knows that guilt by association is how skepticism works!

If a known con-artist calls me with "the greatest business opportunity ever", do I, as a good skeptic, need to investigate the veracity of his claims?

Let's think about this for a second and apply the same sort of logic you're using to smear scientists based solely on being referenced by an IPCC report (we'll grant for the sake of argument that the IPCC is on par with a con artist, something you've provided nothing in support of). Why then, wouldn't we also think less of *you* simply because a con artist called you on the phone, regardless of whether or not you fell for (or were in on?) the con?

Again, not smearing all the scientists. In fact, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'll assume they are professionals. I was very clear about my disgust with the IPCC and why.

For you guys, it's like making a sound argument in a political arena and having the KKK endorse your point of view. Anyone would be saying, "get the hell off my side"! Can't you see that?

@ reflex-croft: Himalaya-gate happened. No amount of revisionist history on this forum will erase it. There are other equally egregious affronts to science perpetrated by Pachauri's circus if you care to look.

Again, not smearing all the scientists. In fact, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'll assume they are professionals. I was very clear about my disgust with the IPCC and why.

The IPCC (or at least, most of it) is made up of the scientists you are talking about. If you even scan the list of authors of these reports, you'll see that they are all affiliated with other academic institutions. They donate their time to work on reports like this.

I get it. Yes, I'm sure the data was collected, analyzed and reported by people with no connection to the IPCC, but the fact remains that the IPCC put their stain on it. If that organization is involved, I'm not going to waste my time doing any homework on ANYTHING they say. There are too many examples of them making outlandish statements backed only by the words of some other NGO or activist. Himalaya-gate is just one example.

There's at least as many examples of people on the other side doing just as bad, or worse. By your standard, we're then justified in throwing up our hands and giving up on understanding climate, because there's no point in investigating the claims of people who are associated with liars.

Well, then. That was easy. We don't have to worry about climate change because there's no point in trying to understand the subject. At least, there's no point until you're ready to discuss evidence, rather than 'stain' and bad associations. Once you agree that there is evidence out there (you can even collect a fair bit yourself, straight from the sources, and avoid that 'stain' of the IPCC), however, we could talk about that, instead of spinning our wheels on political prejudices (of whatever stripe).